Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 109 (HP)

Jagroop Singh Mehta v. State of H. P.

2015-02-26

P.S.RANA

body2015
Order : P.S. Rana, J. Present Civil Writ Petition filed by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that on dated 26.12.1978 petitioner joined service in the Indian Navy. It is pleaded that on dated 31.12.1996 petitioner was discharged from Navy on competition of 18 years of service and got his name registered with Ex-servicemen Employment Cell Hamirpur. It is pleaded that on dated 18.12.2002 Selection Committee-cum- Ex-servicemen Employment Cell Hamipur interviewed the petitioner for the post of Physical Education Teacher. It is pleaded that on dated 15.5.2003 State Government issued notification making Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules inapplicable to the incumbents appointed after the said date. It is pleaded that on dated 21.7.2003 Ex-servicemen Cell sponsored the name of the petitioner in response to the requisition of education department for the post of Physical Education Teacher. It is pleaded that on dated 23.9.2003 petitioner was issued appointment letter by respondent department depriving the petitioner of pensionary benefits under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. It is pleaded that direction be issued to the respondents to grant benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 with all consequential benefits. It is pleaded that deduction of CPF be stopped. Prayer for acceptance of petition sought. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 pleaded therein that petitioner was discharged from Indian Army Navy on dated 31.12.1996 and got his name registered in the Ex-servicemen Employment Cell Hamirpur in the year 2000 for the post of Physical Education Teacher as per Annexure P1. It is pleaded that as per Annexure P1 Selection Committee of the concerned Cell conducted interview on dated 18.12.2002 and sponsored the names of the eligible candidates for appointment in the month of July 2003. It is pleaded that petitioner was offered appointment on 23.9.2003 by respondent department. It is pleaded that Government of Himachal Pradesh has notified HP Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules 2006 vide notification No. Fin(Pen)A(3)01/96 dated 17.8.2006 which came into force w.e.f. 15.5.2003. It is pleaded that as per notification appointees of the HP Government appointed on or after 15.5.2003 would govern according to the provision of HP Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules 2006. It is pleaded that petitioner was appointed on 23.9.2003 whereas notification No. Fin(Pen)A(3)01/96 dated 17.8.2006 came into force on 15.5.2003. It is pleaded that as per notification appointees of the HP Government appointed on or after 15.5.2003 would govern according to the provision of HP Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules 2006. It is pleaded that petitioner was appointed on 23.9.2003 whereas notification No. Fin(Pen)A(3)01/96 dated 17.8.2006 came into force on 15.5.2003. It is pleaded that services of the petitioner would be governed according to the provision of HP Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules 2006. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. 3. Per contra reply filed on behalf of co-respondent No.3 pleaded therein that the requisition of the vacancies for the post of Physical Education Teacher was received from the employer. It is pleaded that after completing all the formalities a letter dated 21.7.2003 for nomination of six candidates including petitioner and issue of appointment letter for the post of Physical Education Teacher was sent to the Deputy Director of Education Nahan District Sirmour HP. It is pleaded that petitioner has no cause of action against co-respondent No.3 and prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents at length and also perused the record carefully. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that case of the petitioner is covered as per decision in CWP No. 2059 of 2010 titled Hridye Prakash Vs. State of HP and another and as per decision in CWP No. 1130 of 2012 titled Kishori Lal Vs. State of HP and others. 6. It is held that in case the petitioner is also similarly situated as the petitioners in the writ petitions No. 2059 of 2010 decided on 26.7.2011 titled Hridye Prakash Vs. State of HP and another and CWP No. 1130 of 2012 decided on 15.5.2012 titled Kishori Lal Vs. State of HP and others similar treatment would be extended to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of order dated 26th July, 2011 passed in CWP No. 2059 of 2010 titled Hridye Prakash Vs. State of HP and another and on production of certified copy of order dated 15th May 2012 passed in CWP No.1130 of 2012-C titled Kishori Lal Vs. State of HP and others before competent authority of law. State of HP and another and on production of certified copy of order dated 15th May 2012 passed in CWP No.1130 of 2012-C titled Kishori Lal Vs. State of HP and others before competent authority of law. Competent authority of law would take independent decision keeping in view the ruling cited supra. Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. All miscellaneous application(s) if any are also disposed of.